BUDGETS BUDGETS
Cutting back T
Golf course maintenance is a costly exercise, but tough times shouldn’t mean reckless cuts to operating budgets to appease the bottom line. USGA agronomist Bob Brame identifies the top five mistakes golf clubs should avoid when needing to make budget adjustments.
When there is a need to reduce the budget, it should come with the realisation that the end product, in this case the golf course, will likely change. Reducing inputs and expecting the same output is very seldom realistic 50
he purpose of a golf facility maintenance budget is to produce desired course conditioning and playability. When aligned with the intended end product, preferably via written and implemented maintenance standards, the operating budget will ensure that agronomics, economics and even politics at the golf facility are in proper balance. When there is a need to reduce the budget, it should come with the realisation that the end product, in this case the golf course, will likely change. Reducing inputs and expecting the same output is very seldom realistic. This does not necessarily mean that change is bad, but it does point to the importance of being careful with how change is applied. This article will present the top five mistakes to avoid when maintenance costs must be reduced.
1. FAILING TO ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure includes the equipment inventory, maintenance facility, staffing, irrigation system, drainage network and golf course architecture (or design features). In short, the maintenance infrastructure is the behind-the-scenes support that facilitates routine, day-to-day maintenance of the golf course. It is easy to understand that the amount of equipment and staff will directly impact what can be achieved on the golf course. Architectural features also impact the maintenance programme and costs, which is sometimes overlooked by golfers. For instance, maintaining steep bunker banks requires more staff and equipment than does the care of softer terrain and design features. The decision must be made to either spend the resources to properly care for the difficult-tomaintain area (possibly at the expense of other areas of the course) or alter the area to conserve resources that might be better used elsewhere. The same can be applied to irrigation or drainage limitations that force the need for more staff. Often, even when more staff is added to counter infrastructure limitations, the end product will remain compromised, as will budget
AUSTRALIAN TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT 20.2
efficiency. Clearly, a solid infrastructure will reduce maintenance costs and allow what is being invested to go further. Proper upkeep, replacement and updating of golf course infrastructure will maximise life expectancy. Equipment must be properly maintained to produce good results, with the same applying to the irrigation system, drainage network and maintenance complex. Sharp mower blades, for example, increase fuel efficiency while also improving turf quality and playability. A straightforward need, such as keeping irrigation heads level with the surface, can significantly improve the uniformity of the irrigation pattern. Sprinklers frequently slip below the surface over time, so regular maintenance is needed to correct this and ensure optimum irrigation efficiency. Likewise, proper upkeep of the maintenance complex will improve safety and efficiency. In summary, it is very important for the maintenance infrastructure to be in sync with, and support, desired conditioning and available funding.
2. CUTTING THE MOST EXPERIENCED OR HIGHER-PAID STAFF Staff salaries, wages and benefits often comprise 55 to 70 per cent of a golf course maintenance budget. This makes staffing an inevitable target when budget reductions are needed. It might be suggested that cutting a senior member of the greenkeeping staff, especially when there is more than one, is equivalent to several less-skilled employees. In fact, this is occasionally applied to the superintendent. The rationale is often that if the superintendent is let go and an assistant superintendent is promoted, then the needed budget reduction will be achieved and, since all other components in the budget are left unchanged, the end product should be unchanged. Wrong! This suggests that experience offers little or no value. Would you be as comfortable with a lessexperienced surgeon, even when all licensing and educational requirements have been met?